Give over, Ted, climate change is not an existential threat (‘Climate change’s an existential threat’, Letters, March 3).
The worst case prediction of the recent IPCC report is 4degC by 2100 which is very serious but not planet smashing.
You are continuing along the same theme as your letter published a few weeks ago which postulated an outlandish claim of global warming of 3degC by 2030.
Again, a scenario not accepted by the IPCC reports.
It has taken 100 years to produce 1.1degC global temperature rise shown today from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.
Your claim would require a four-fold-plus increase in the current emission rate, year on year for the next 10 years to produce the additional 2degC in global temperature by 2030. Global emission measurement in 2018 is showing a falling greenhouse emission rate.
Now this is not to decry the seriousness of global warming. It is real.
But outlandish, overstated and just plain silly claims by warming deniers and warming alarmists are not helping rational debate.
Like governments declaring climate emergencies, it’s nonsense, if climate change is an emergency as claimed, then do something about the problem, and not engage in woke virtual signalling telling us ratepayers how you are really concerned about this problem, and how wonderful you are by showing such concern. At least, I am not listening.
Global warming is with us now, and actions must be taken to mitigate the worst of its effects, and that will result in significant changes and challenges to the lifestyle of humankind.
By way of an example, don’t expect to be driving a diesel-powered four wheel drive by 2030.
Diesel will be a retired fuel reserved for restricted industry use.
Ted has already provided another example by way of the work of SEA Electric in building specialised electrical powered industrial vehicles.
The PM talks continuously about preserving jobs, and SEA is how you do it by developing opportunities in a new economic model, not by preserving jobs in the coal industry – you are actually doing those people a future disservice.
Although, I suspect the PM is more interested in preserving return on investment for shareholders in that industry, not the workers.
By 2050, metallurgical coal will still need to be mined, natural gas will remain a fuel for peak load power generation.
Electric cars will be the norm with restricted use and greater reliance on public transport. House design will change dramatically with no, or shared, air conditioning and heating.
Generation three-plus and gen four nuclear reactors will be on stream; these are not your Chernobyl or Three Mile Island reactor design. They will be required for safe power generation and to service hydrogen fuel production – current techniques are just plain dirty.
Hydrogen will be needed in large amounts to power ships, aircraft and heavy industry.
I will not see this but what a great opportunity for our youth in the future to build a new planet. We should encourage and not scare them.
Meanwhile, stick to arguing the case for the IPCC recommended pathway of 1.5degC rise in global warming by 2050.
This is the best balance between looking after the disadvantaged of the world and preserving a global economy able to work in all of our best interests.
Rod Gallagher, Inverloch.
Rational debate on climate change